[Janos]

I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)

The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.

Wait wait wait.

What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.

[karajorma]

Yeah, Clinton was smart enough to just starve them into submission. Less Americans lives lost, y'see.

And thereby not being a complete idiot.

I never said that his strategy was good, fair or even smart. Are you seriously going to tell me invading Iraq was a better plan?

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

So the solution is surely to educate the electorate so that they don't make such stupid, ill-informed decisions, right?

[NGTM-1R]

The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.

ORLY?

Compared to the plans against Castro, that's positively sane and certainly a lot more effective.

Also there is the minor matter that it is literally illegal for the United States to delibrately target foreign heads of state for "the chop" and has been for a good 20 years or more. (IIRC President Ford made the executive order stating so?)

[Polpolion]

I don't think socialism should happen like it's been seen (USSR and Cuba are the big two examples)

The USSR and Cuba were communist. Germany was socialist.

Wait wait wait.

What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.

Apperantly it wasn't obvious enough for people to not make mistakes, so I fixed it. You're sarcasm is unappreciated.

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

Yes, I think it's great too. Assuming that everyone living in the nation is an intelligent person. Just look at America. What's our representative democracy doing? Representing the logically invalid opinions of idiots. All democracy does is make a horrible leader less horrible than he would in an authoritarian government. But if you have a truly excellent leader, he is only hampered by everyone else. Only in an authoritarian government can the greatness of a good, benevolent, intelligent leader be portrayed in its fullness.

Until we find a leader with the previous mentioned qualities, we'll have to make do with democracy. Once we do, only an authoritarian government will work.

Until we kill every single stupid (stupid is highly debatable in this situation) person in the world, we'll have to make do with a democracy that hasn't reached its fullest potential of ruling quality. Once we do, then a democracy becomes not only highly beneficial, but necessary.

[Bob-san]

Gore and Kerry were a bit worse than Bush. Bush's administration could have been different if not for 9/11/01, but that happened and we will never know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry were in office for it. I don't particularly like Bush, but I know one thing--he was the lesser of the two electable evils.

This is not a typo, right?

Which part of it?

And a bit of defense of my post: I was 9 when Bush was elected and 10 when he got in office. I don't remember ol' Bill Clinton. I don't remember the platform Bush ran on for his first election, though the republican party pick was nearly guaranteed to be Bush again, especially since he wanted a second term. Whatever happened to one president cannot be replicated for another president. Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times. Anyways--some other things. If you remember, it was the USSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Still, it was a communist party that made the Socialist "republics". Anyways--Germany was more Fascist than Socialist. As for Cuba, it's a Socialist Republic.

The only way I see socialism working is in an industrialized society. The USSR and Cuba were pretty bad implementations--they were not heavily industrialized and it didn't work. As for Germany, it was industrialized but the direction was revenge, not social equality.

[Woolie Wool]

Representative democracy is not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than any authoritarian regime that has ever existed.

I don't know about that.

Authoritarian regimes are as good or bad as the ruler in question. They can be brilliant or they can be bad.
With democracy you got a load of dimwits that can't agree on practicely nothing, so you basicely get a constant stream or crap..or some mediocricy if you're lucky.

Having unlimited or very extreme power ****s with your mind, and even a brilliant despot can (most likely will) become drunk on his own power and use it to indulge his every whim if he keeps his position long enough. And there's no guarantee at all that you won't get a mass murderer like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or Mao Zedong.

A democracy may not always pick from the cream of the crop (and sometimes it does--look at Theodore Roosevelt), but the worst leaders of democracies tend to be much, much better than the worst leaders of autocracies (compare Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Saddam Hussein and Pol Pot). Furthermore, a bad democratic leader has much less potential to inflict damage because he can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution. Every decision the president makes is checked by the courts, and Congress can overturn some presidential decisions like vetoes. A bad president can cause an economic slump and piss off his constituents. A bad dictator can cause total economic collapse, famines, death squads, and the deaths of a large portion of his citizens.

But wait, it gets even better! Human beings are nepotists by nature, so dictators tend to put their children first in line for secession. So instead of George Bush I and II, you get George Bush III, IV, V, VI, etc. There's no guarantee the issue of a dictator will be any better or not infinitely worse than the dictator himself. Within a few short years after the death of Charlemagne, his empire was falling apart and his three sons were fighting over the pieces.

Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America. Completely unlimited, as in he could do ANYTHING he wanted. Now imagine him ruling until he died, and then his next of kin ruling until his death, and so on, for centuries.

Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.

If that's not bad enough, autocrats as a rule don't like people saying bad things about them. They dislike those people enough to imprison or kill them. So, anyone who criticizes the government (and surely we all have at some point), would be eligible to be thrown in prison for years.

Still bullish about this whole authoritarianism idea? How'd you like to live in this alternate universe "Amerika" under the role of President-For-Life Bush, or President-For-Life Kerry, or President-For-Life Obama, or anyone, for that matter. I wouldn't. Even if God were real I wouldn't want him in this position either. Besides, he has a rather bad human rights record, if the Bible is anything to go by.

What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.

Yes, THAT Germany was socialist, at least in the beginning. A really ugly kind of socialist, but socialist nonetheless. The official name of the party translated to "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Adolf Hitler was definitely not a white-collar capitalist.

The CIA doesn't do that kind of thing anymore.

ORLY?

Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.

(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)

[Kosh]

Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times.

I'm surprised you would say that considering the massive vote fraud that happened in both elections.

[redsniper]

[The President] can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution.

HA HA! OH WOW!

[Kosh]

Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.

Yes.

Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America.

He's working on it.

[karajorma]

Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.

(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)

Oh really?

The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to visit Panama. A plot was hatched to put 200lb (90kg) of high explosives under the podium where he was due to speak. That time, Castro's personal security team carried out their own checks on the scene, and helped to abort the plot. Four men, including Luis Posada, a veteran Cuban exile and former CIA operative, were jailed as a result, but they were later given a pardon and released from jail.

As it happens, Posada is the most dedicated of those who have tried and failed to get rid of the Cuban president. He is currently in jail in El Paso, Texas, in connection with extradition attempts by Venezuela and Cuba to get him to stand trial for allegedly blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. His case is due to come back before the courts later this month but few imagine that he will be sent to stand trial, and he appears confident that he will be allowed to resume his retirement in Florida, a place where many of the unsuccessful would-be assassins have made their homes.

Seems like business as usual to me. Simply with more deniability by saying they're ex-CIA.  Since that article was written Posada was released. Meaning that the US is illegally harbouring a terrorist who killed 73 civilians by blowing up their plane. Funny how the war on terror only applies to terrorists who kill US civilians isn't it?

 Try watching this trailer. Or better yet track down the full thing.

[TrashMan]

This is not a typo, right?

Which part of it?

Saying that Kerry or Gore are worse than Bush... I mean...c'mon. That has GOT to be a joke.

[TrashMan]

*snip*

Don't get me wrong - I'm not for total authoritarian regime. Some level of power control must be there. Exactly how much power a president/ruler should have and how much the senate/congress/whatever is up for debate.
What I would think would be necessary for any government to function properly is if those abusing their power get DRACONIC punishments. Right now, a president or minister abusing his power gets away with redicule or some small fine...assuming he even gets removed from office in the first place (and if he was abusing power by that time he amassed $$$ so what does he care. He pays the small fine and live the rest of his life in luxury).
No, I'm taking things like LIFE IN PRISON or DEATH PENALTY for those in power who steal from the people, are counterproductive and stuff. Then you'll make damn sure you're underlings are doing their job right..and your underlings will make sure their underlings do their job right...when you're head is on the line, you'd be surprised how effective a goivernment can be.

[Janos]

What Germany? You're not talking about... No you cannot be serious. You aren't.

Yes, THAT Germany was socialist, at least in the beginning. A really ugly kind of socialist, but socialist nonetheless. The official name of the party translated to "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Adolf Hitler was definitely not a white-collar capitalist.

Do you call North Korea democratic as well?

Here are some core values of nazism:
- invidual rights are secondary to state's interests
- individual is a servant of state
- anti-capitalist rhetoric combined with lots of cooperation with private companies
- strongly racist and pro-nation state
- weird religiosity
- authoritarism and "strong leader"-ideology
How do these compare to socialist values?

Hitler was not a white-collar capitalist and even called the nazis "socialists", however he also vehemently opposed marxism and stated that he wanted to protect private property.

Seriously. Nazism has about as much to do with socialism as modern libertarian ideologue has. Nazism is an authoritarian, state-driven, fiercely nationalistic, racist and chauvinistic warlike ideology where big companies play an important role.

[Woolie Wool]

You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).

Hell, imagine if YOU were a dictator. Do you honestly think you'd keep putting the interests of your people ahead of your own, even with numerous opportunities to screw them for your own benefit? We're talking billions of dollars here.

Yes.

I don't believe you. Suppose you were the president. A man in a black trench coat offers you $10 million if some guy who's criticizing his operation was snuffed out. $10 million would be decades' worth of Presidential salary, and nothing would happen to you if you did it. Think about what you could do with $10 million. Think long and hard. Now you see why autocracies lend themselves to incredible corruption and plunder?

Unlimited power turns honest men into murderous assholes.

Imagine if George W. Bush was a dictator with unlimited power over America.

He's working on it.

President Bush's term is almost up, and there's no way he could cheat his way out of leaving office like Putin did or the police would drag him out in handcuffs and the media would rip him to pieces (Vladimir Putin has almost entirely suppressed the Russian independent media). Even Richard Nixon left office voluntarily, and he was far more corrupt than any other president in history. Not to mention the Democrats have control of Congress and are set to win the presidency as well. Bush's goose is quite cooked by this point.

Bush had two chances and the "people" (the people the first time, the people and the majority the second time) chose him to lead both times.

I'm surprised you would say that considering the massive vote fraud that happened in both elections.

Because only the Republicans commit vote fraud. Yeah, right.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/more-democrat-vote-fraud-convictions

[The President] can't do whatever the hell he wants. He has to appease his constituents and he has to follow the Constitution.

HA HA! OH WOW!

If you're talking about the Patriot Act, I'm not sure the 4th Amendment says what you think it says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It says your body and property, not information about who you are and what you're doing on public library computers. Hmmm...

[Sarafan]

It's quite ironic that this thread shows why you americans are unable to solve your problems with Cuba, here we are in a thread about Cuba and what do you do? Talk about your country's problems and nothing about Cuba.

[Janos]

You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).

Ok. First, source to "abolishing family, dismantling all religion and removing civil liberties". Thank you.

The idea of nation state, destroying civil liberties, putting state on a pedestal, loving powerful leader, racist parts, loving private companies and so on is typical right-wing fascist agenda! It's completely contradictionary to socialist values! The entire idea of private enterprise and strong nation state is an antithesis to most mainstream socialist theories! 
I am very left-wing. I know quite well what socialism is. And calling nazism socialism is the same as calling laissez-faire capitalism somewhat a distorted form of social democracy. The two share some values; I do not deny that. They even share the basic rhetoric. But they also differ so vastly from each other, that if you lumped the two into the same "socialist" category, then all normal parties in West will all also fall into "enlightened liberalism". And all communist regimes will also fall to the same "socialist-fascist" group, making any discussion about these completely impossible. When two competing ideologies announce that they are mortal enemies and their core values are in conflict by definition, then lumping them together means an effective end to all discussion regarding the differences between the two.

I will now also state that American liberalism and Cuban communism share so much of their basic ideology (see late 18th century) that the two are actually the same.

[karajorma]

It's quite ironic that this thread shows why you americans are unable to solve your problems with Cuba, here we are in a thread about Cuba and what do you do? Talk about your country's problems and nothing about Cuba.

Notice that Woolie didn't respond to the one person (me) who actually mentioned Cuba in response to him but did respond to all the people talking about America.

Let's face it. If America held itself to the same punishments for harbouring terrorists and assassination attempts on national leaders that it considers just to mete out to other nations it would be a bombed out 3rd world country by now.

[Woolie Wool]

You seem to be conflating socialism with communism, and the two are not the same thing. The early Nazi party had far greater control of the economy than any legitimately capitalist government, forced citizens to work, and forced companies to contribute to Nazi projects. Socialism comes in other flavors besides "Marxist worker's paradise", from mildly socialist European economies to Communism to outright kleptocracy. And the first two of the values you mentioned are, in a much less extreme form, socialist concepts. In fact they're pretty much included full strength in communism, right down to Karl Marx's plan to abolish the family and have the state raise children, dismantle all religion so the state can take its place, and remove all threats to the primacy of the state (such as civil liberties).

Ok. First, source to "abolishing family, dismantling all religion and removing civil liberties". Thank you.

Here is the complete text of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, provided by marxists.org: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

And the relevant quote about family:

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

And religion:

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

The idea of nation state, destroying civil liberties, putting state on a pedestal, loving powerful leader, racist parts, loving private companies and so on is typical right-wing fascist agenda! It's completely contradictionary to socialist values! The entire idea of private enterprise and strong nation state is an antithesis to most mainstream socialist theories! 
I am very left-wing. I know quite well what socialism is. And calling nazism socialism is the same as calling laissez-faire capitalism somewhat a distorted form of social democracy. The two share some values; I do not deny that. They even share the basic rhetoric. But they also differ so vastly from each other, that if you lumped the two into the same "socialist" category, then all normal parties in West will all also fall into "enlightened liberalism". And all communist regimes will also fall to the same "socialist-fascist" group, making any discussion about these completely impossible. When two competing ideologies announce that they are mortal enemies and their core values are in conflict by definition, then lumping them together means an effective end to all discussion regarding the differences between the two.

I will now also state that American liberalism and Cuban communism share so much of their basic ideology (see late 18th century) that the two are actually the same.

Do you think all socialism is your brand of socialism? Do you think all capitalism is laissez-faire Gilded Age capitalism? Laissez-faire capitalism and social democracy are both forms of democratic capitalism, only the former is extreme and the latter is not. Nordic welfare states, communist states, the quite unique Chinese economy, and Nazism are all socialist, but they are not the same. It doesn't have to be "mainstream" to be socialism.

[Woolie Wool]

Perhaps I should've been more precise. We don't send the CIA to kill heads of state anymore and in fact banned them from doing so. We kill terrorist leaders on a routine basis.

(ngmt1r beat me to the punch)

Oh really?

The most recent serious assassination attempt that we know of came in 2000 when Castro was due to visit Panama. A plot was hatched to put 200lb (90kg) of high explosives under the podium where he was due to speak. That time, Castro's personal security team carried out their own checks on the scene, and helped to abort the plot. Four men, including Luis Posada, a veteran Cuban exile and former CIA operative, were jailed as a result, but they were later given a pardon and released from jail.

As it happens, Posada is the most dedicated of those who have tried and failed to get rid of the Cuban president. He is currently in jail in El Paso, Texas, in connection with extradition attempts by Venezuela and Cuba to get him to stand trial for allegedly blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976. His case is due to come back before the courts later this month but few imagine that he will be sent to stand trial, and he appears confident that he will be allowed to resume his retirement in Florida, a place where many of the unsuccessful would-be assassins have made their homes.

Seems like business as usual to me. Simply with more deniability by saying they're ex-CIA.  Since that article was written Posada was released. Meaning that the US is illegally harbouring a terrorist who killed 73 civilians by blowing up their plane. Funny how the war on terror only applies to terrorists who kill US civilians isn't it?

 Try watching this trailer. Or better yet track down the full thing.

Oh, so you have no proof that he was acting under CIA authority but you're going to say it as if it were undisputable fact, even though even the Guardian said he was no longer a CIA member. If we should send people to prison for pardoning people like this guy, then let's send Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton there too, since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who was caught red-handed, and Bill Clinton pardoned convicted criminals.

Also, law only really exists where there is a monopoly of the lawgivers on the use of force. Not a very nice thing to hear, but that's how it goes.

Basically, you're making an unfounded assumption about former CIA operatives who no longer have CIA orders but still have CIA training, and whether it was legal for the US to pardon him or not wouldn't change **** anyway. Let's throw the French government in prison, too, since they blew up a Greenpeace boat in a deliberate attempt to shut them up.

[Sarafan]

Notice that Woolie didn't respond to the one person (me) who actually mentioned Cuba in response to him but did respond to all the people talking about America.

Let's face it. If America held itself to the same punishments for harbouring terrorists and assassination attempts on national leaders that it considers just to mete out to other nations it would be a bombed out 3rd world country by now.

What country in the world wouldnt be bombed?

Anyway, I just hope Raul will lighten things on Cuba so that it becomes a better place in the future. After all, the end of an era always marks the beginning of another.